… as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.

There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion:

The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.

The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

Great stuff. One small problem though:

Bush doesn’t mean one damn word of it.

For example, Bush also said:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

Support the growth of democratic movements and institutions? Is that what Bush has been doing?

The Bush administration, while stating that democracy is the cornerstone of its Mideast policy, has directed more than half of the funds in its key democracy-promotion initiative to assist autocratic regimes in promoting free trade and education.

Only about $3 million of roughly $95 million went for direct funding for local groups promoting democracy or "civil society,"…

Or take this section of Bush’s speech:

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.

Like how Bush made it clear to Uzbekistan, where he looked away at its boiling of dissidents as he strengthened our ties with the dictatorship.

In July, the U.S. State Department determined that Uzbekistan had failed to make sufficient progress on its human rights commitments as outlined in the U.S.-Uzbek Bilateral Agreement and therefore did not qualify for direct government assistance, cutting U.S. $18 million in aid.

However, in August, the Department of Defense undermined the principled message this decision sent by pledging U.S. $21 million in new military aid.

The U.S. continues to regard Uzbekistan as an important partner in the war on terror.

Because before Bush, it would be considered hippy-dippy to argue that addressing the root causes of terrorism, such as oppression and disenfranchisement – as opposed to mere brute force -- is the only way to truly and completely defeat our enemies.

Now, it can treated as accepted fact.

At the same time, we must make loud and clear that Bush is refusing to carry out his own so-called “doctrine.”

By propping up oppressive dictators and backing coups, Bush is making it impossible for America to spread freedom and liberty.

Because that destroys America’s credibility as a beacon of freedom.

If all we have is the point of a gun, and no credibility, there is no way that the people of a sovereign nation will trust that we have their interests at heart.

And if we are powerless to spread freedom, if we are seen across the world as an enemy of freedom, terrorist groups will continue to be able to use the perceived threat of America as a tool grow their ranks.

No matter what we do militarily.

We can’t stop Bush from continuing on this dangerous path for the next four years.

But we can, and should, lay the intellectual groundwork for what should be done after his policies fail.

And it is small comfort that Bush’s rhetorical tricks give us an opening to do just that.

(Ted Kennedy is the only Dem committee member “leaning” against Gonzales. Barbara Boxer is also leaning against, but she is not on the committee.)

So this is no time to let up on the pressure. The Dems need a grassroots push more than ever.

On the up side, it is very notable that Sen. Dianne Feinstein has added her name to the list of Dems expressing public concern about Gonzales. From Bloomberg:

…Feinstein said she was troubled by Gonzales's answers to questions about torture, even though he said he opposes it.

“You get down to what constitutes torture, he gets into a very legalistic definition,” she said.

She said she is concerned that Gonzales refuses to search his files or provide the committee with classified documents, “when he knows we have access to classified information.”

It “doesn't portend well'' for his cooperation with Congress once he becomes attorney general, Feinstein said.

Feinstein is notorious for breaking ranks to support Republican nominees (she lavishly praised Condi Rice in introducing her to the Foreign Relations Cmte on Tuesday).

So if she moved from concern to outright opposition of Gonzales, the likelihood of a unified Dem “No” vote rises dramatically.

And it’s only with such a vote that Dems will be able to communicate how their values on torture dramatically differ from the GOP, and how implicitly condoning torture hurts our ability to fight terrorism.

Also of note, Bloomberg reported the GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, the new chair of the Judiciary Cmte, is worried about unified Dem opposition:

Specter said he hoped to avoid a party-line vote on Gonzales. He “would be much stronger as attorney general if there is a significant bipartisan aspect to the vote,'' Specter said.

Of course, it’s bunk that Gonzales can’t make an impact without a bipartisan support. 42 Senators voted against John Ashcroft, and he did plenty of damage anyway.

What Specter is really worried about is losing the PR battle over Gonzales, having the party tagged as the pro-torture party (not to mention, failing in his first task as Chair).

And when you got them worried, you should know you’re on to something.

And Boxer’s principled actions are setting herself apart from her more cautious peers.

So what does that mean for her and the party?

It depends on how Boxer uses her raised profile.

If she continues to throw elbows from time to time, she’ll probably maintain a fan base, build her email list, and raise some coin for her PAC For A Change, which funds Dem candidates.

(Boxer is currently running blog ads to call attention to her PAC’s petition, which is providing some grassroots backing for her questioning of Condi.)

While those confrontations might provide us with some moments of satisfaction, if Boxer continues to be alone in provoking them, that doesn’t do much for the larger cause.

But if she uses the attention she gets with each confrontation to define liberal Democratic views more creatively and effectively, she can have a much bigger impact.

For example, it’s one thing if she votes “No” on Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice.

It’s another if she follows up with a string of media interviews explaining that if Democrats were in charge, we would never nominate candidates that hurt our efforts to fight terror by sullying our credibility or condoning torture.

That way, her vote is not mere naysaying, but an action that shapes the public’s view of liberal principles.

As you may know, both the
NY Times and LA Times reported on Sunday that the Social Security Administration, the government agency that runs the program, is spewing out dubious info to help Bush sell his partial privatization agenda.

This is just the latest chapter in the conservative movement’s larger agenda to break the civil service. (See these pastLiberalOasisposts.)

They don’t want a government workforce of experienced professionals who inform the public with reliable, objective factual data.

They want a government of political hacks who will put out the (mis)information the president wants.

That report sniffed at the “Public Administration Model” of government as “emphasiz[ing] the Progressive ideal--a value-free ‘scientific’ program of government administration.”

Instead, it preferred the “Political Administration Model” which it defines as “providing presidential leadership to committed top political officials…holding them and their subordinates personally accountable for achievement of the President's election-endorsed and value-defined program.”

That may sound nice enough on paper, but we’ve seen what that means in action.

On MTP, when Tim Russert asked if he would “allow” a “propaganda campaign” to happen, Bartlett said:

There's no expectation that career employees would be asked to advocate on behalf of any specific prescription for Social Security.

This was a very blatant and audacious dodge.

The charge isn’t necessarily that the Social Security Administration will explicitly back a detailed privatization proposal, a “specific prescription,” but that it is spreading misinformation which Bush can then cite in pushing such a plan.

But Russert neglected to follow-up.

And neither CNN or Fox bothered to ask him one question about the Social Security Administration propaganda effort.